Disney blocking release of new Michael Moore film

Parking Lot

Wednesday, May 5th, 2004
Disney Has Blocked the Distribution of My New Film... by Michael Moore

Friends,

I would have hoped by now that I would be able to put my work out to the public without having to experience the profound censorship obstacles I often seem to encounter.

Yesterday I was told that Disney, the studio that owns Miramax, has officially decided to prohibit our producer, Miramax, from distributing my new film, "Fahrenheit 9/11." The reason? According to today's (May 5) New York Times, it might "endanger" millions of dollars of tax breaks Disney receives from the state of Florida because the film will "anger" the Governor of Florida, Jeb Bush. The story is on page one of the Times and you can read it here (Disney Forbidding Distribution of Film That Criticizes Bush).

The whole story behind this (and other attempts) to kill our movie will be told in more detail as the days and weeks go on. For nearly a year, this struggle has been a lesson in just how difficult it is in this country to create a piece of art that might upset those in charge (well, OK, sorry -- it WILL upset them...big time. Did I mention it's a comedy?). All I can say is, thank God for Harvey Weinstein and Miramax who have stood by me during the entire production of this movie.

There is much more to tell, but right now I am in the lab working on the print to take to the Cannes Film Festival next week (we have been chosen as one of the 18 films in competition). I will tell you this: Some people may be afraid of this movie because of what it will show. But there's nothing they can do about it now because it's done, it's awesome, and if I have anything to say about it, you'll see it this summer -- because, after all, it is a free country.

he was told over a year ago that his movie would not be released by miramax but suddenly made a big promotion about it right before the cannes festival to get other companies interested in picking up the rights to release his newest "film."

Regardless of his characterization of it, he is not being censored. He can put out his film in any movie house that will play it and the government will do nothing to prohibit him.

Moore plays the martyr all the time. Disagree with him and you are an ignorant fool afraid of his work. He pulled a similar stunt prior to the Oscars. He is a self aggrandizing individual who plays upon liberal sensitivities to promote his own agenda.

Censorship by the government is wrong. But any private company has the right to refuse to do business with someone if they feel it will reflect badly on them. I believe Disney is the "evil empire", but if they refuse to distribute his film, it's up to him to find someone who will.
He is just trying to generate publicity and cause a stir by bitching about it.

Why exactly did Disney sign on with Moore in the first place? Didn't they watch his previous movies?

Also, corporate censorship does exist. A very small group of media companies controls most of the major avenues of speech in this country, and they have an inordinant amount of control over what actually reaches the general public. I think the internet helps, but watch out for corporations influencing the government to restrict that access.

The previous paragraph makes me sound like a Chomsky-style conspiracy guy, but this is the line that conservative columnist William Safire pushes in his op-ed stuff, so it cuts across the spectrum.

Also, I'm not saying that Disney has to distribute the film, but then they should release Moore to find new distribution in the US.

Moore plays the martyr all the time. Disagree with him and you are an ignorant fool afraid of his work.

That's exactly right. I love how Moore bitches about American jobs being lost all the time yet his web hoster and web designer are based out of Canada. Moore seems very much like a hypocrite to me. In the words of the "brilliant" Bobcat Goldwaite, "It's easy to be a liberal when you live in a gated community"

__________________You're So Vain...You Probably Think This Sig Is About You

Also, corporate censorship does exist. A very small group of media companies controls most of the major avenues of speech in this country, and they have an inordinant amount of control over what actually reaches the general public. I think the internet helps, but watch out for corporations influencing the government to restrict that access.

...

Also, I'm not saying that Disney has to distribute the film, but then they should release Moore to find new distribution in the US.

JW, I agree with your first point -

Because media corporations have a vested interest in pleasing the public, they will tend to follow a strategy that, at best, is non-controversial and, at worst, feeds the lowest common denominator. In doing so, they can and do self censor, refuse to produce, or otherwise inhibit the production of controversial or fringe (either fringe) materials. As a result, these corporations can limit public access and, thus, limit public awareness of conflicting viewpoints. I agree that, as citizens, we have a duty to be informed and to look beyond the simple paff fed us by those who have an interest in giving us information we find pleasing.

-(One of my favorite Calvin and Hobbes cartoons has Calvin asking "Marx said 'Religion is the opiate of the masses' I wonder what that means?" To which the TV replies "He hadn't seen anything yet")-

As to the second:

I seriously doubt Disney held a gun to Moore's head and forced him to sign with the company. It's Disney for God's sake; one of the most image conscience corporations out there. What? Did he mistakenly think they were some radical independent going to give him free reign? No, he knew they were a big corp that could give him plenty of what he craves - exposure.

Can anyone deny that Disney has an agenda here in choosing to not distribute this film?

if u were the head of disney, would u wish to release a heavily one sided political movie about a very sensitive subject, especially during an election year?
i had heard the thing about disney telling moore a year ago on headline news and in the interview he didn't deny it being true about him knowing miramax wouldn't be releasing his movie for about a year, but he did say the past few days because of this, his phones have been ringing off the hook. this guy from day one has sounded like someone who'd do anything to get his movies publicity as long as it helped him make more money. if he's so intent on uncovering "political conspiracies" why hasn't he made any movies about waco?

Well, Disney doesn't exactly have their hands completely clean when it comes to image. They are the producers of such movies as Pulp Fiction (that's appealing to a young audience!) Kill Bill, SHAOLIN SOCCER!!!! (hurray!), Prozac nation, Train Spotting, Reservoir Dogs. Many of these movies are extremely violent, some I have no idea about (Shaolin soccer!) but I know most are heavily influenced by drugs and violence.

Bowling for Columbine was done by MGM studios, which if I'm not mistaken is also a Disney studio.

I understand their reasons for not wanting to release it, but they should have known when taking it, after reading the script and gotten the basic gist that he was going to devestate the Bush's since there's an obvious connection between their family and the Bin Laden family. I don't blame them for not releasing it, but I feel they should sell the right to another studio with some balls.

This has nothing to do with Disney's image to uphold, it has to do with their tax status. They don't want to get loaded down with taxes by Sir Jeb. Don't try to make it out like they are trying to protect their lovely self-image even though they put out movies constantly littered with drugs, sex, and violenece.

I for one want to see it, and often times Michael Moore goes over the top, but you can't take anything anyone says when it comes to politics fully to heart. He does unravel quite a few of very nice tidbits, and it seems conservatives are more afraid of him than anything.

I'm suprised Jeb hasn't attacked Disney yet, seeing as how they give their gay workers benefits as if they were married. That's an outrage, in Jesus's eyes you know! Or at least that's how the Bush family thinks.

I understand their reasons for not wanting to release it, but they should have known when taking it, after reading the script and gotten the basic gist that he was going to devestate the Bush's since there's an obvious connection between their family and the Bin Laden family. I don't blame them for not releasing it, but I feel they should sell the right to another studio with some balls.

Not having read the contract (and not being an entertainmen lawyer), I can't be sure BUT I would assume that, as part of any contract between Disney and Moore, Disney bought the rights to be the exclusive owner of anything produced by Moore. If another studio wants to pony up the cash, I wouldn't be surprised at all if Disney sold the rights. But, as Disney has a significant economic interest and possible risk in doing so, the price to do so would probably be high. Still, if Moore can convince somebody else to make the offer, more power to him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daseal

This has nothing to do with Disney's image to uphold, it has to do with their tax status. They don't want to get loaded down with taxes by Sir Jeb. Don't try to make it out like they are trying to protect their lovely self-image even though they put out movies constantly littered with drugs, sex, and violenece.

Fine, whether it's for direct (tax) or indirect (image) economic considerations, the choice is Disney's. Moore sold them that right when he signed the contract. Again, by selling them the right to publish or not publish his work, Moore took the risk that they would choose not to publish his work in return for a nice payout, top of the line name recognition, excellent distribution system, and significant advertising back up. If he wanted complete control over the release, he could have attempted to negotiate it with Disney OR signed with another company which wouldn't have had some of the benefits inherent to Disney corp but would have given him greater control.

My point is not that Disney is trying to protect their self image, rather it's that Moore entered into a contract with Disney in which each side got benefits and took risks. One of the risks Moore took is that Disney would choose not to publish his works. Disney took the risk that they would get nothing of value to them in return for their investment in Moore.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daseal

He does unravel quite a few of very nice tidbits, and it seems conservatives are more afraid of him than anything.

Afraid? No. Tired of having to point out, discuss and otherwise debunk his radically one sided view? Yes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daseal

I'm suprised Jeb hasn't attacked Disney yet, seeing as how they give their gay workers benefits as if they were married. That's an outrage, in Jesus's eyes you know! Or at least that's how the Bush family thinks.

Couldn't resist the chance to make an obligatory, gratuitous, and off-topic swipe at a Bush could you?:thumb: